The Fun and Folly of NBA Rankings

Summertime in the NBA is full of rankings. Teams, players, coaches, all-time greats, nobody is immune from the dreaded “1-to-x” listing process. The Portland Trail Blazers have not fared too well in leaguewide rankings lately. That’s a cause for concern for one Portland fan whose submission we examine in this bonus edition of the Blazer’s Edge Mailbag.

Dave,

Why do [the Blazers] keep getting overlooked in the rankings? I can understand power rankings cuz they probably just go by last season’s results and won’t change anything big without a big trade or something. But our players are better than they get credit for. Even the younger players seem to get ranked lower than young players from other teams even though some of those players were drafted lower or don’t have the same stats. Is it just lack of visibility or do you think we get shafted by the national media?

Wants Some Respect Bob

Sure, visibility has something to do with it. The Blazers are remoted, tucked in a corner of the league and the country. When Damian Lillard transcended into the national consciousness he rose above some of that, but at least among more causal media–read: non super-nerds–that’s what it takes.

But you also have to understand the point of rankings. It’s 5% serious, 95% a fun exercise to generate discussion. Coming up with the perfect list would be a tragedy! Nobody would have anything to say about it other than, “Yup. Agree.” The interesting part as the person crafting those rankings is to weigh different options and make a choice based on whatever formula you crafted. May be right, may be wrong, but it’s still challenging and bound to evoke the opinions of others who judge differently than you.

Rankings do have some value, but only when zoomed out. It’s completely accurate to say that LeBron James is far better than most of the 12th men in the league, as most starters will be. But you didn’t need a list to tell you that. The finer details provide the amusement and brain exercise, but this is exactly where rankings start to fall apart.

Casual, fan definitions of the word “better” have been overwhelmed in a sea of trade machines, draft simulators, and 2K ratings. One player might be an 89, another an 83, and clearly you want the first, right?

I am nowhere near the proficiency level of a professional scout. But even I can point out the flaws in that omnibus approach. It only takes four words: Better at what, exactly?

If you look at the Trail Blazers roster currently, I’m comfortable in saying that the last thing they need is another ball-dominant player. Scoot Henderson, Deni Avdija, Jrue Holiday (sometimes), Damian Lillard (eventually), and maybe Yang Hansen all operate pretty well with the rock in their hands. The more you take it away from them, the less they’re playing to their strengths and the less effective they will get.

So let’s say we’re looking for a reserve guard for the Blazers, especially knowing Lillard is injured for at least a year. The name Russell Westbrook pops up. He’s nowhere near the level of his prime, but his scoring numbers are still good, his assist totals are great, he’s got experience, he’s been a former MVP, and he even received votes for Sixth Man of the Year last year. Overall he’d rank a lot higher than an average G League player.

But damn, when it comes to the current Blazers, I think I’d rather have the G League guy. That’s not an insult to Westbrook. I just suspect his play style, his lack of three-point shooting, and generally being set in his ways would break Portland’s offense, concentrating it even further inside and taking away opportunities from the teammates mentioned above. At least the G League guy wouldn’t upset the apple cart. In comparison to the league, Westbrook might be the Xth best reserve point guard out there. For Portland, he would be near the bottom of the list.

That’s just a lazy example. The aforementioned scouts will get granular enough to make your head spin. Does this player catch and shoot or fire off the dribble? From what areas of the floor is he most effective? Is he a one-footed or two-footed jumper? What’s his wingspan? Does he make one play, zero plays, or multiple efforts on defense? How good is he going right and left on each end of the floor? I can’t even begin to approach the level of detail professionals assess.

Each one of those answers, compared to team structure and needs, will determine how high a player “ranks” for your franchise. Answers may vary. Wildly.

If we go down a leaguewide ranking list, of course you’d see most teams selecting the highest players before the lowest. But when you start narrowing down to plus or minus 30 players–maybe even more–the difference between them is going to depend on a whole lot of factors that nobody is accounting for, factors that can’t be accounted for with that big of a lens.

In short, I’d take the rankings for what they’re worth–entertainment and discussion–while realizing that the Blazers need to get the best players for them and not just the highest-ranked players overall. Aside from the obligatory admission that Portland still needs a true #1 option of the kind that usually dominates such rankings, I don’t think Joe Cronin and company are losing too much sleep over what media folks think of Portland players. Fans probably shouldn’t either.

Thanks for the question! You can always send yours to [email protected] and we’ll try to answer as many as possible!